To the Editor:
Re “Oprah, Ozempic and Us,” by Tressie McMillan Cottom (column, March 23):
I’ve always been a big Oprah Winfrey fan and understand her reasons for going all out in the hopes of shedding light on obesity as a disease and on the cost of drugs. But it is important to remember these three points:
1. A person must stay on these drugs for life or it is highly likely he or she will put the weight back on (a nice bonus for Big Pharma).
2. Where are the long-term studies of the safety/health of the body for lifelong use? There are none, since no one has taken these drugs for that long.
3. The side effects to achieving weight loss with these drugs sometimes make the dieter feel miserable enough to come off them. Then what? Go back on again? We already know yo-yo dieting is harmful to the body.
Andrea Candee
South Salem, N.Y.
To the Editor:
Tressie McMillan Cottom’s column about our nation’s chief dieter, Oprah Winfrey, raised some compelling points.
As a registered dietitian and licensed mental health counselor who has treated food addiction for years, I’ve also heard my clients speak of Oprah as though she possessed more credentials than I do to address their health and emotional issues related to food.
Growing up in Milwaukee during the ’60s and ’70s, I don’t recall seeing obese individuals. We saw “big-boned” girls, as muscle weighs more than fat. In 1996, I learned about body composition, which considers the weight of muscle, bone, organs and fat, rather than just scale weight.
My clients were overjoyed to discover body composition! At last, they felt at ease in a larger body not defined by B.M.I.
Oprah has disclosed everything except the truth. She apparently has an eating disorder; there’s no shame in that. Her dieting has fulfilled a role throughout her life, but necessary work is lacking. Deeper work is needed, not the lack of “food noise” in her mind since starting a weight-loss medication. While these drugs are helpful, they come with side effects and don’t address the underlying cause of disordered eating.
Oprah should cease promoting diets and giving health advice. I often ask my clients: “Would you consult an unlicensed doctor? Or even an unlicensed nail technician? Then why heed advice from someone without a nutrition license about what to ingest?” Oprah falls into that category.
Chrisanna Wright
Punta Gorde, Fla.
To the Editor:
Oprah Winfrey’s weight rises and falls like the tides. Each time it crests, she discards her most recent attempt at loss, finds a new possibility, sheds some weight and tells the world (of women mostly) that here is my latest and greatest way to the promised land of svelte. And in the process, makes another fortune.
Oprah is highly skilled — as an actress, a writer, an interviewer and a huckster. There is another possibility that her followers should consider as they evaluate her newest ideas for drugs and weight loss: She may not know what she is talking about.
Andrew Workum
Perrysburg, Ohio
Plugged In or Unplugged: Life Lessons in Two Habitats
To the Editor:
Re “School Year Far Apart Brings a Family Closer Together,” by Damien Cave (news article, March 27):
Amelia Cave, 13, and her family are learning some valuable life lessons while she is away at school in the Australian bush, without any digital devices.
I had a similar experience when as a college student I had a grant to do anthropological research among descendants of the Incas in the Peruvian Andes. It was a mind-bending and life-altering event, living there without electricity.
But the most important lessons to be learned will be when Amelia returns to her natural habitat in the wired world of the 21st century. We cannot pretend that smartphones and social media are aberrations to be shunned. After all, her father, who wrote the article, is on his iPhone about six hours a day.
These devices are part of who we have become in the course of human evolution. We need to use them, but better and smarter.
Steve Nelson
Williamstown, Mass.
The author is writing a book about how electricity is driving human evolution.
To the Editor:
“School Year Far Apart Brings a Family Closer Together” could hardly be more in line with the current vogue for romanticizing nature and disparaging the digital world.
Why can’t we ever hear from someone who would rather enjoy the internet’s great wealth of music, literature and just plain fun than commune or struggle with nature?
And isn’t it time to stop contrasting the digital world with “real-life interaction,” as if smartphone interactions were somehow unreal?
Felicia Nimue Ackerman
Providence, R.I.
Humane Ways to Fight Rodents
To the Editor:
Re “Are Glue Traps Too Cruel to Use in the Fight Against Mice and Rats?” (news article, nytimes.com, March 28):
I was disturbed by one interviewee’s assertion that glue boards are popular because they’re cheap, and New Yorkers don’t care if rats and mice die.
While no one wants to share their home with uninvited rodent “guests,” many people shun the use of cruel glue boards in favor of more humane and effective solutions.
One example that has gained traction with many households and businesses is having spayed and neutered, microchipped, well-cared-for “working cats” patrol the premises and, by their very presence, eliminate the appearance of rats and mice. Although a cat will kill rodents, its greatest contribution as deterrent is its scent. People who have cats as pets have known this for years.
More to the point, however, is that humans attract rodents by leaving out garbage. The most effective and humane solution for ridding an area of mice and rats is to eliminate their source of food. Keeping a clean environment by disposing of food scraps and garbage in metal garbage cans will go a long way toward eliminating these unwanted visitors.
Steve Gruber
New York
The writer is director of communications for the Mayor’s Alliance for NYC’s Animals, a private nonprofit.
Ushering In Spring
To the Editor:
Re “The Best Way to Welcome Spring? Give Your Foyer a Makeover” (Real Estate, nytimes.com, March 27):
Doors and entryways bridge the outside world and the interior home. Their significance transcends time. The ancient Roman god Janus looked after doors, transitions and temporality; the Roman poet Lucretius used images of a light and a doorway to describe perception, depicting eyes as portals of transport and questioning the traditional anatomical model of vision.
I agree that our entrance halls deserve an April reset: hiding clutter, lightening the colors, bringing in seasonal objects. But aside from function and aesthetics, these spaces and boundaries carry philosophical meaning. As the passage between two locations, entryways separate domestic comfort from outer bothers, while also facilitating access and allowing daylight to enter unimpeded.
A place of both ingress and egress, a portal ends at the same point it begins. We sweep winter out and open our rooms, and our minds, to spring.
Rachel Brooks
Princeton, N.J.